Case Study #14: Measuring and Mapping Program Learning Outcomes

ISSUE:

As with course-level learning outcomes, program-level learning outcomes must also be assessed and findings reported in a serviceable manner so that curriculum changes can be proposed based on the data collected. A systematic methodology is needed for this purpose. Ideally, the methodology would be similar to that implemented for course-level outcomes, so that the learning curve for faculty would be minimized. Described below is one way that an institution set up its program learning outcome reporting structure, as well as how it accomplishes mapping program learning outcomes, to align with its overall assessment program objectives.

SOLUTION:

Program learning outcomes are associated with a program (degree or certificate) and therefore generally span multiple courses in frequently multiple disciplines. As such, a unique mapping process was developed at one institution to accommodate this complexity. A program-level Excel workbook was generated that included the program outcomes, a mapping process to link them to the institutional outcomes, and a worksheet for each required course in the program that mapped the individual course outcomes to the program outcomes. An example of this workbook is shown in the two images below. This workbook was also used to report assessment findings in a similar fashion to the course outcome reporting workbook.

The advantage in mapping course outcomes to program outcomes is clear. Each course required by a program should support one or more of its overall outcomes. If a course does not appear to provide significant value in meeting any of program outcomes (remember that a course does NOT have to align with ALL program outcomes), it’s recommended that program faculty revisit the course’s inclusion in the program. Likewise, if a program outcome is not supported by any of its required course outcomes (or addresses the outcome only at the Introductory level), then a thoughtful discussion should ensue about how that specific program outcome will be Reinforced and Mastered through the curriculum progression. This mapping process provides a structured method of gaining insight into a program’s true objectives and initiates fruitful conversation with respect to its constituent courses.

The image below shows an example of a complete curriculum map for a given program. Each course required by the program is shown along the top axis, in chronological order, according to the program’s guided pathway. If any of the course outcomes were mapped to a program outcome (per the above-described process), then the user is prompted to enter the instructional level at which that course outcome achieves the program outcome: Introductory (I), Reinforced (R), or Mastered (M). It should be evident that all program outcomes should be mastered by students at the completion of the program of study. This is yet another view of a program’s curriculum that would be important to address during Program Review.

Another purpose of this view of the program curriculum map is to evaluate whether the sequence of courses (the order in which students should take the program coursework) is appropriate based on how the program outcomes are instructed. Clearly, program outcomes should be introduced before they are reinforced and eventually mastered. In this case, a sequence of courses as suggested by the curriculum map from left to right (SUS 300 to SUS 489) is appropriate. A slight change that might be considered by program faculty is to move SUS 416 to the end of the student’s coursework, as it addresses mastery of PSLO #5, whereas SUS 450 only reinforces this outcome. Thus, this view of an entire program can be used to recommend curriculum changes for improving student success and maintaining consistency of program outcome instruction.